As remarked

__earlier__, I may well go to my grave without ever grasping the concept of an

**observable**, much less physical ontology in general. Still, it is helpful towards organizing my thoughts, to have an online scribble-space, so that the matter is, so to speak, officially a topic, a project under way. For now, this is just a whiteboard on which to stow some juicy quotes. Your own juicy contributions are more than welcome.

For a more general surview of the ontology of the various sciences, click here.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

P.A.M. Dirac,

__The Principles of Quantum Mechanics__(1930; 4

^{th}edn. 1958), p. 116:

From our assumption that the energy is an

**observable**, there are sufficient stationary states for an arbitrary state to be dependent on them.For a layman, this is bemusing. The

(Compare Einstein, in one of his Zen moments: "It is the theory that decides what we can observe.")

*assumption*that it’s an observable? Can you observe it, or can’t you? -- Evidently there is much more to qualifying as “an observable” than merely being … observable.(Compare Einstein, in one of his Zen moments: "It is the theory that decides what we can observe.")

P.A.M. Dirac,

__The Principles of Quantum Mechanics__(4^{th}edn. 1958), p. 458 (re certain eigenstates):Science contains many examples of theoretical concepts which are

**limits of things met with in practice**and are useful for the precise formulation of laws of nature, although they are not realizable experimentally, and this is just one more of them.Emphasis added. “Limits” in the mathematical sense.

Note that “not realizable experimentally” does not constitute much of a disability. What, after all,

*is*? “Carthage lost the Punic Wars”; “I love you”; “E8 is a 248-dimensional rotation-space”: no, almost nothing is.Robert Lindsay & Henry Margenau,

__Foundations of Physics__(1936), p.402:Quantities such as position, energy, momentum, and the like, capable of measurement… will be called

*observables*, although it is not intended to imply that they are observable directly.The caveat is troubling enough; but now this:

In quantum mechanics, the state of a system is no longer defined by means of a number of variables having an immediate intuitive appeal … In fact, it is not defined in terms of observables at all; it is simply a function in configuration space.

Carl Hempel, “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning” (1950):

*Green, soft, liquid, longer than*designate observable characteristics, while

*bivalent, radioactive, better electric conductor*, and

*introvert*do not.

This odd assertion, by a well-known philosopher of science, seems more psychological than scientific. It is reminiscent of Locke’s distinction between simple and composite ideas.

Eugen Merzbacher,

__Quantum Mechanics__(1961, 2^{nd}edn. 1970), p. 153:Following Dirac, we call

**observable**any Hermitian operator which possesses a complete set of eigenfunctions.This might sound opaque to some, but for a math guy it’s the clearest statement yet, by far. Of course, what it amounts to

*physically*, intuitively, is something else…Gerald Holton,

__The scientific imagination__(1978), p. 202:The idea of making quantitative indicators of anything at all fascinates some persons, and repels others as dangerous or absurd. This difference is caused largely by thematically incompatible -- and therefore often unresolvable -- personal views concerning the ability of

**quantifiables**to lead to … the deepest reality.Note the silly dichotomy -- as though failing to lead to "the deepest reality" (a deeply suspect term) meant that they couldn't be "indicators of anything at all".

Stephen Hawking,

__A Brief History of Time__(1988; 2^{nd}edn. 1996) p. 75:The fact that confinement prevents one from observing an isolated quark or gluon might seem to make the whole notion of quarks and gluons as particles somewhat metaphysical. However, there is another property of the strong nuclear force, called asymptotic freedom. The

*concept*of these entities was already well-defined, or not, as the case may be: certainly well-defined as bookkeeping conventions, if nothing more. Asymptotic freedom -- “at high energies, the strong force becomes much weaker, and the quarks and gluons behave almost like free particles” -- simply adds a further mode of observing their effects: and in this case, their effects when they are relatively ineffectual -- quarks on holiday.Failure to be observable in isolation certainly doesn't make a thing "metaphysical" (in the colloquial bad sense intended here). You cannot observe a "brother" in isolation: dissect him down to his last tissues, nothing will reveal his brotherhood but the historical context. Nor, perhaps, can you observe Coulomb attraction in a single isolated particle -- it takes two to tangle. (I might be wrong on this -- the photon cloud and all that. But how does the cloud tell you whether you've got an attraction or a repulsion?)

Steven Weinberg,

*Dreams of a Final Theory*(1992), p. 181:The positivist concentration on observables like particle positions and momenta has stood in the way of a “realist” interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which the wave function is the representation of physical reality.

Wiki, "Quantum field theory" (excellent article, btw):

In quantum field theory, unlike in quantum mechanics, position is not an observable.

From the point of view of quantum field theory, particles are identical if and only if they are excitations of the same underlying quantum field. Thus, the question ‘Why are all electrons identical?” arises from mistakenly regarding individual electrons as fundamental objects, when in fact it is only the electron field that is fundamental.

The global phase of the wave function is arbitrary, and does not represent something physical.

Wiki, "Implicate and explicate order" (of interest only to those who are already devotees of guru-physicist David Bohm):

Bohm’s paradigm is inherently antithetical to reductionism … and can be regarded as a form of ontological holism.

Wiki, “Introduction to Gauge Theory”:

The electric field and the magnetic field are

**observable**, while the more fundamental electromagnetic potentials*V*and**A**are not.[Update 8 May 2012] And now this:

The philosophical status of the wavefunction — the entity that determines the probability of different outcomes of measurements on quantum-mechanical particles — would seem to be an unlikely subject for emotional debate. Yet online discussion of a paper claiming to show mathematically that the wavefunction is real has ranged from ardently star-struck to downright vitriolic since the article was first released as a preprint in November 2011.

The paper, thought by some to be one of the most important in quantum foundations in decades, was finally published last week in

*Nature Physics*They say that the mathematics leaves no doubt that the wavefunction is not just a statistical tool, but rather, a real, objective state of a quantum system.

I told you so... |

.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment